While we're all focusing on Yokohama, here's
an interesting idea about another interest of ours.
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/11945.html
>
>We have the solution to cybersquatting
>
>By: Kieren McCarthy Posted: 14/07/2000
>
>Internet technology has spawned an enormous amount of legal
>action, but the most bitter of it has frequently been to do
>with so-called cybersquatting.
>
>Just as much as people want a certain URL, the party that
>owns it doesn't want to hand it over. We've had companies
>bullying legitimate individuals, famous people "defending
>their reputations", politicians having a humour bypass and
>every other manner of selfish act.
>
>Those that had the nous to register Web addresses early
>have been turned from enterprising entrepreneurs into
>malicious cuckoos, and the term cybersquatting has become
>one of the most abused terms in the Internet dictionary.
>
>Then, with the announcement that the World Intellectual
>Property Organization would "study ways" of stopping people
>registering URLs to which they have "no legitimate claim",
>it looked as though the game was up: it's survival of the
>richest.
>
>We pondered how it had all come to this and wondered how
>individual freedom and business necessity could be tied
>into one solution. Then, floating inside a carefully
>balanced solution of effluent and beer, the vulture brain
>suddenly realized the grand solution to all of this.
>
>Now, the very basis of the cybersquatting argument is that
>people type in a URL expecting to find one thing and are
>instead faced with something completely different.
>
>This is bad and wrong and damaging to business - the
>Internet is of such importance that people should be able
>to find a company without undue difficulty. Extending this,
>trademarks are expensive and carefully managed. Anyone
>using this as a basis of recognition is abusing the
>previous investment that has been put in by a different
>company, etc, etc, etc.
>
>The solution is simple. Suppose we own www.vulture.com. Our
>logo is a vulture, it's instantly recognizable but not
>directly linked to who we are. Now huge company Vulture
>Inc. wants the URL, says people expect to find it there,
>they won't know to go to www.vultureinc.com instead.
>
>So what happens? Vulture Inc goes to WIPO. It states its case and pays a
>fee. WIPO considers the argument and makes
>a decision whether people have a right to expect Vulture
>Inc to be found at our site. If it says no, tough. If it
>says yes, the WIPO informs The Reg that we are legally
>obliged to carry a link on our front page to Vulture Inc.
>This consists of a standard, instantly recognizable WIPO
>button and is placed top left. We add it to the site and
>hey presto everyone's happy.
>
>This is a fair system, recognizing both people's rights and
>the fee aspect should prevent an abuse of the system. Since
>the buttons will be common, they won't interfere with
>people's view of the page. Big companies will not have to
>carry any buttons because of their greater importance and
>for small companies, the minor inconvenience of a few
>buttons (perhaps a maximum of five, if that becomes
>necessary - extra fees to WIPO if there is argument) will
>be outweighed by the prime position it holds.
>
>And that's it. What do you think?
Frankly, I like it.
It's my opinion that judges wish they could make everyone
happy with their judgements. They can't of course. In the
process they seem to often make everyone feel like a victim.
With this as a potential judgement, it gives them a
"gray" solution for a "gray" problem.
Let Kieren McCarthy know what you think.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Reardon
15223 Grevillea
Lawndale CA 90260
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
